California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from San Jose, has introduced legislation that would require every state to form "independent" commissions that would draw legislative and Congressional district lines. The federal power play comes just as California is struggling with a half-dozen measures that would take the once-a-decade job away from the majority power, Democrats.
Democrats are worried that ending their power to draw district lines — or cementing the power of Republicans in some Red states — could jeopardize their continued control of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants a national model rather than a piecemeal approach in all 50 states. Right now, California's legislative districts are drawn by Assembly and Senate leaders using sophisticated computer programs weighing population, demographics and party affiliation.
Lofgren's proposal would create bipartisan redistricting commissions in every state. Her office said each party's representatives on the commission would be chosen by members of the opposing party; that the commissions may also include independents or third-party candidates; that commission members may not hold elected office and would be prohibited from doing so until the next redistricting; and that the redistricting commissions must conduct public meetings and solicit public comment.
"An ad-hoc state by state approach rewards those that have used, and will continue to use, redistricting as a partisan political tool," Lofgren said in a statement. "By requiring nationwide independent commissions, we level the playing field for all, regardless of political party. A comprehensive redistricting commission approach will promote an open, fair, and depoliticized process."
The bill is cosponsored by 22 members of congress, including Reps: Jim Costa (D-CA); Bob Filner (D-CA); Tom Lantos (D-CA); Betty McCollum (D-MN); Jerry McNerney (D-CA); George Miller (D-CA); Hilda Solis (D-CA); Ellen Tauscher (D-CA); and, Henry Waxman (D-CA), Lofgren's office said.
California politicos are wrangling over several initiatives and legislative measures that would transform how lawmakers draw legislative districts. One would choose mapmakers from a sort of super-jury of 160,000 registered voters; another would have the Little Hoover Commission draw the lines; still another favors county registrars of voters as the mapmakers.
Does Congress have the power to mandate how California should draw its districts? The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the process of actually redrawing the lines; it only requires that Congressional districts be apportioned every decade after each census. However, it does required that "the times, places and manner
of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the
places of choosing Senators." (Emphasis added.)
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) issued a statement about the plan: "Our system of redistricting congressional and legislative districts is broken — not just in California but across the nation. I applaud Congresswoman Lofgren for taking a bold step in introducing legislation to implement national redistricting reform. Representatives elected in other states under unfair schemes are likely to be more partisan and less willing to work with California's representatives. ..."
The five-car pileup over drawing legislative and Congressional district lines could get more complicated with another initiative that has been written by political advisors close to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Right now, that secret initiative is on hold while Schwarzenegger and the Legislature consider the various plans for changing California's complicated redistricting process - something the governor says he wants done this year.
The initiative was crafted by prominent GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk, along with political consultant Rob Stutzman, the former communications director for Schwarzenegger, and initiative strategist Rick Claussen. All three have ties to the Republican governor, but the initiative was written independently of his office, sources said. In addition, prominent Democratic consultant Garry South advised on the plan.
Broadly, the new initiative would require the state's Fair Political Practices Commission to create a citizens commission that would draw legislative lines (one version excludes Congress, another includes federal districts.) The five-member commission would hire six other people to create an 11-member panel.
Those additional panelists would include one member from academia with experience in redistricting, one attorney with the same type of experience, and four city or county elections officials - two from high-density areas and two rural. The membership would have to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats.
The initiative has been circulating in the administration and among good-government groups.
If unleashed, it would join redistricting initiatives written by political watchdog Ted Costa, along with other "citizens commissions" being considered in the Legislature by Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, Senate leader Don Perata (pictured with Schwarzenegger), and Republicans. One, supported by Nunez, would shift redistricting to the Little Hoover Commission. It's all being closely watched by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't want the lines for Congressional members drawn by anyone other than Democratic leaders until a "national solution" is created.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has a fairly nonpartisan reputation, but is considered a weak enforcer of the state's campaign finance laws because it has been chronically underfunded. It's current membership includes chairman Ross Johnson, a former Republican lawmaker appointed by Schwarzenegger. His term ends Jan. 31, 2011 - before the redistricting process would begin in full. It would be difficult to find an elections attorney without some partisan affiliation, but perhaps Rick Hasen is available.
The Hiltachk-Stutzman-Claussen-South redistricting measure was designed in part to be a hammer that would force the Legislature to deal with redistricting. Some Republicans are worried that voters will be faced with only altering California's term limits law without making other major reforms. But they are holding their fire, sources said, because the administration first wants to work a compromise in the Legislature.
But it doesn't appear the FPPC option would make it to the February ballot - time is running out to collect signatures.
(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
U.S. Term Limits is announcing a lawsuit today over Attorney General Jerry Brown's "title and summary" of an initiative headed that would alter California's 17-year-old term limits law. There is no real science on whether voters use the title and summary paragraph to make decisions - but most political consultants believe it makes a difference on under-publicized or complicated initiatives.
The lawsuit, to be unveiled at 10 a.m. today, is expected to say the wording is misleading and should be altered to reflect a "weakening" of the law. Right now, it emphasizes exactly what Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a major backer of the initiative, wants
California voters to hear: it would "limit" and
"reduce" the terms of lawmakers - strengthening the law.
The first two sentences: "LIMITS
ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state
legislature from 14 years to 12 years."
But the initiative also would effectively extend the terms of several lawmakers, including Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata (pictured above). That's the whole reason it's being rushed for the February ballot - it would give them time to run for reelection when they would otherwise be forced to leave. There is nothing about this in the summary, which is produced by government attorneys in Brown's office.
The initiative, which is being managed by Democratic political consultant Gale Kaufman, is designed to be "clean." It doesn't have any sweeteners for skeptical voters, such as reducing the perks given to lawmakers or adding restrictions on lobbying. It's just about term limits.
This has been a behind-the-scenes debate between Nunez and Perata - with some advisors to the Senate leader believing California voters would need something else before they altered the vaunted term limits law. So far, a series of somewhat encouraging polls and the favorable title and summary have offered good news to Nunez's camp.
(Photo:
Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
The California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. has donated $100,000 to an initiative campaign that would alter the state's term limits law--and extend the power of Senate leader Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, both facing retirement from the Legislature.
Yesterday, the same day the $100K donation was publicly reported (PDF) by the union, Nunez and Perata unveiled a plan that would force 8,000 inmates into lockups out of state. The CCPOA, not surprisingly, hates this part of the Nunez-Perata prison overhaul--it takes away their best customers.
"We are going to do everything we can to point out the dangers of this plan," Lance Corcoran with the union told The Times. He said prisoners who don't want to move could create peril for officers: "We're going to have to fight them out of their cells," he said.
The CCPOA contribution to the Committee for Term Limits & Legislative Reform was made April 11, and reported yesterday.
 Another California city is setting standards well beyond the voter-approved "Jessica's Law" that bans registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. The new statewide law cannot be applied to people who lived within the zone before voters approved Proposition 83 last November, but it restricts new residents from moving in and requires lifetime GPS tracking of sex offenders.
The city council in San Marcos has approved a 300-foot "safety net" around public and private schools, parks and school bus stops. The ban would apply regardless of whether children are present, the San Diego Union-Trib reports today. Santee, La Mesa, National City and unincorporated San Diego County also have approved 300-foot bans, while Chula Vista's zone is 500 feet from where children gather.
The city-by-city, county-by-county regulations are another case study in California's weird ballot initiative process. Proposition 83 allowed local communities to set their own standards, but it also made an explicit statement approved overwhelmingly by voters statewide: The zone should be 2,000 feet. The map, for example, shows every county except San Francisco supported Jessica's Law.
But would voters have approved Prop. 83 if the zone had been only 300 feet for the entire state? California now is creating a patchwork of laws for sex offenders--which is likely to push them to rural communities that are doing nothing to tweak Prop. 83.
 This is one of those stories where few people involved are really speaking the truth in public.
I know Nevada County and the Gold Country foothills pretty well, and there is no question that a lot of residents in the backwoods are growing marijuana for sale--a lot of it. And many people are doing it legally through California's Proposition 215, the medicinal marijuana law.
But "supporters of medicinal marijuana" packed a City Hall meeting in Nevada City last night to protest a proposal to reduce the amount of marijuana a patient would be allowed to keep on hand. The Union newspaper follows the story: "Supporters of medicinal marijuana, most of whom did not want to be identified and asked that their pictures not be taken, freely voiced their criticism of law enforcement and the proposed changes, which would reduce the number of plants allowable by law enforcement from the current limit of five to 10 plants to a new limit of six mature plants or 12 immature plants.
"Users are currently allowed to have two pounds of dried pot on hand, while the proposed change would reduce the dried amount to eight ounces. The standards are supposed to allow for a year's supply of marijuana.
" 'Eight ounces? I can't work with that,' shouted one man. 'Marijuana helps me survive.'
"Many said they could easily smoke eight ounces in a month."
An ounce of marijuana is a large amount. Eight ounces is an extraordinary amount to have sitting around, and two pounds borders on ridiculous for one person. If you're sick enough to require being that baked all day, your problems are far greater than marijuana can handle.
Some people do need marijuana to control pain. And growers may produce more than they need to make up for fluctuating crop yields due to deer, disease, weather and theft. Growing outdoors, for example, can mean only one crop a year in Northern California.
But the unspoken truth is many others are using the 10-year-old, randomly enforced California law to grow pot for sale to people who aren't sick. Just say it.
(Photo: Claudio Peri/EPA)
 The first big campaign contributions are rolling in for an initiative that would alter California's 1990 term limits law, allowing lawmakers to serve 12 years in either house. The initiative, which also would extend the power of Senate leader Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (pictured), received a nod of approval yesterday from AG Jerry Brown.
Not surprising, the donations are coming from public employee unions. On Monday, the California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee, representing one of the largest unions in the state, contributed $200,000 to the Committee for Term Limits and Legislative Reform. Another $50,000 came from the California School Employees Assn., which represents the cafeteria workers, attendance clerks, office staff, janitors and other "classified" employees.
View PDF filings of contributions here and here. It takes about $1.5 million to place an initiative on the ballot. The term limits effort is expected to eventually attract many millions - from all corners of the establishment, not just unions.
(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
Attorney General Jerry Brown just gave the Democratic leadership in the Legislature a significant assist in their efforts to alter California's term limits law.
The title and summary of a proposed term limits initiative has just been released by Brown's office, and it emphasizes exactly what Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez wants California voters to hear: that the initiative would "limit" and "reduce" the terms of lawmakers. The first two sentences: "LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years."
The title and summary does not mention that Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata would see their terms extended under the initiative, which is expected to be on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. Both leaders are scheduled to leave the Legislature next year, unless voters approve the alteration of the 1990 law and allow them to stay in their current houses. The initiative campaign is being run by Nunez's political advisor, Gale Kaufman.
To be sure, voters make their decisions in the ballot box for many reasons. But the title and summary, which is produced by attorneys in Brown's office, often provides a critical guide to voters who make up their minds at the last minute. As one Democratic operative emailed Political Muscle today, the title and summary released today is "as good as it gets."
A new poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University shows bare-minimum support for changing California's term limits law - but support nevertheless. This is the third poll in recent days on the controversial initiative, which would allow lawmakers to serve 12 years in the Senate or the Assembly, instead of 14 years divided between two houses.
The institute said California voters favor altering the law by a margin of 51-36%. The initiative was described as "a proposal to allow elected officials to spend no more than 12 years in either the state Assembly or Senate – a reduction from the maximum 14 years legislators may now spend in the two houses combined."
Not surprisingly, how the initiative is described seems to make a difference in how voters respond in surveys: 
"That result is similar to a report from David Binder Research, which conducted a poll for the term limits coalition. Binder, whose question was similar to SPRI’s, found the measure leading 59-33%. But both surveys conflict with a result from the respected Public Policy Institute of California which found voters strongly opposed to the measure by a margin of 66-29%."
This means the title and summary of the initiative from the Attorney General's office - which is still being written - could be critical. Many voters base their decisions on the way initiatives are described on the ballot and in the voter pamphlet. High-ranking elected officials who could see their power extended under the initiative, including Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (pictured), will be watching the AG's language closely.
The institute surveyed 574 individuals identified as voters as part of its quarterly California Consumer Confidence Survey, March 26-30 in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. The margin of error for all voters in the survey is plus-or-minus 4 percentage points.
"Voters like term limits," said Phil Trounstine, director of the institute. "If they see this measure as
a way for legislators to lengthen their terms, it's likely to fail. If they see the measure as a further
limit on legislative terms, it stands a chance of passing. It all comes down to how the message is
framed."
(Photos: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
Feel like gambling with someone else's retirement? A rocket scientist and amateur poker player in San Diego says he might have the answer for California's teachers and veterans.
Tony Sandstrom—known online as Tuff Fish—has introduced an initiative that would bolster the public pension system for teachers and help California veterans by setting up a government website for online poker. It would act sort of like the California Lottery, and presumably give poker enthusiasts a legal arena. Currently, online poker is a legally murky venue where U.S. players are not allowed to gamble for money.
They do it in Sweden, where the government's online poker site made nearly $700 million in profits last year.
The California site would collect fees or a "rake" from the gambling site and direct 45% to the California State Teachers Retirement System for retirees with lower-than-average pensions. Another 45% would be directed to veterans homes, mental health programs for retired military personnel and, specifically, to purchase artificial limbs and hearing aids for veterans. The final 10% cut would be directed to gambling addiction programs. PDF version of the initiative here.
Sandstrom doesn't plan to spend much money getting the initiative qualified for the ballot. But he hopes the large population of teachers and various veterans groups in California would get jazzed about it. To me, it's doubtful the teachers unions would even consider spending millions of dollars to overcome the inevitable opposition from gambling tribes and legal card rooms.
In an interview, Sandstrom nevertheless said, "There is some serious money" to be made if California set up its own government poker site similar to a monopoly site in Sweden. (It's true there is money to be made. I knew a guy in college, Russell DeLeon, who started an online poker site with his wife. They are now billionaires. He doesn't return my calls.)
Videos of Sandstrom's online poker techniques are a popular subject on YouTube. The 61-year-old aerospace engineer said he would not profit from the initiative. "I probably have spent less money on poker," he said, "than my buddy has spend on his boat."
(Photo: Karen Bleier/AFP-Getty Images)
The state Senate race between incumbent Carole Migden and Assemblyman Mark Leno, both from San Francisco, is getting vicious already.
Leno says the Schwarzenegger administration has relented to his demands and agreed to reduce its planned $129 increase for medical marijuana ID cards. That should make Leno's 2008 campaign mailers especially effective in S.F. and Marin counties.
"Clearly, a crisis has been averted," Leno said.
The Dept. of Health Services had recommended a $142 state fee for the pot ID cards, but Leno says he helped get them down to $66, effective April Fools Day. Currently, the state fee is $13. The cards are allowed under Proposition 215, now a decade old.
The state has issued about 10,000 cards since August 2005 allowing people to purchase pot at "clubs" and other distribution centers, but Leno said the program has been hampered by the failure of some big counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange and Sacramento, to join. Thirty of the state's 58 counties refuse to take applications for medical marijuana ID cards.
(Photo:
Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
Attorney Frank D. Russo says the new term limits initiative could prevent Senate leader Don Perata from running for re-election next year. Drafting error? Read his analysis here.
Update: Citing an "abundance of caution," attorneys for the initiative filed an amendment this afternoon removing the disputed section. Whew! Don Perata can enjoy the long weekend now.
An initiative to change the state's term limits law is being filed today by a broad coalition. If approved by voters, the new law could extend the power of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez by six years and Senate leader Don Perata by four years. The initiative would be slated for the February presidential primary election, and placed on the ballot by voters rather than the Legislature.
Read the text of the new term limits initiative here. (PDF)
The initiative allows any member to serve for 12 years in either house, rather than 14 years divided in the Assembly and Senate. Democratic political consultant Gale Kaufman, who works for Nunez, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's former senior advisor, Matthew Dowd, are running the initiative.
Read Nancy Vogel's story with details.
Real estate heir Stephen L. Bing spent about $50 million on the failed California alternative fuels initiative last year, the biggest single personal investment in a ballot proposition in state history. During the election and afterward, he can arguably be described as reclusive.
As a few people around Sacramento know, Bing can be ruthless about correcting what he thinks are errors in stories written about him. He uses the same bulldog law firm, Lavely & Singer, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. This item is a bit old, but some may be interested in what Bing has been up to since the November election:
- In the January 8 issue [Hot Stuff, page 49], we reported that Steve Bing and Pamela Anderson went on a dinner date, and that Bing had once denied being the father of Elizabeth Hurley's child. This date did not occur. In addition, Bing never denied paternity, and, in fact, he initiated paternity proceedings in order to establish his right to provide financial support for the child. Us regrets the error. Us Weekly via Gawker.
- ON Dec. 28, we reported that Steve Bing went on a "dinner date from hell" with Pamela Anderson. The item, based on a report by Us Weekly, was wrong. The date did not occur. We regret the error. NY Post.
(Photo: Frederick M. Brown / Getty Images)
A few things for Saturday:
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wins court ruling allowing unlimited donations to his ballot measure committee. Ruling seen as "gutting" contribution limits, but court says Fair Political Practices Commission overstepped authority.
- L.A.'s Richard Alarcon is "born to run." Editorial says "ambitious politicians are hardly uncommon. But Richard Alarcon seemingly craves every office."
- Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is a film buff. Filmmaker overwhelmed by honor.
- Incoming insurance commissioner Steve Poizner predicts big earthquake, wants cheaper coverage.
 Today, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will unveil yet another attempt to change how legislative districts are drawn. Instead of allowing lawmakers to gerrymander their own districts and those of Congress, Schwarzenegger says the state should "make every effort to change the way California draws its congressional and legislative districts to guarantee that our elected leaders are more responsive and more accountable to the people they serve."
Yes, "more accountable to the people" sounds good. What about the multiple times the California people have rejected the idea of transferring the job to some independent body or commission? What about the vote in 2005 on Schwarzenegger's own redistricting initiative, Proposition 77, which was defeated by a 19-point margin?
The following is a list of ballot propositions that attempted to change California's redistricting scheme, and their results.
- Proposition 20 (1926) FAILED
- Proposition 28 (1926) APPROVED
- Proposition 13 (1948) FAILED
- Proposition 6 (1980) APPROVED
- Proposition 10 (1982) FAILED*
- Proposition 11 (1982) FAILED*
- Proposition 12 (1982) FAILED*
- Proposition 14 (1982) FAILED
- Proposition 39 (1984) FAILED
- Proposition 119 (1990) FAILED
- Proposition 118 (1990) FAILED
- Proposition 24 (2000) REMOVED FROM BALLOT BY SUPREME COURT
- Proposition 77 (2005) FAILED
Were "the people" who spoke their minds on these initiatives just stupid? When does no mean no? So many questions.
* These were referendums - a "no" vote meant voters were rejecting redistricting plans put forward by the Legislature. (Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
Proposition 83, which would put new restrictions on sex offenders, is coming unglued in federal court - but cities and counties are moving to tweak the law on their own turf. Even if the federal courts clarify how the law really works (probably next year), California could end up with a patchwork of sex-offender ordinances as local communities fight to be toughest on the state's pervs.
 "Jessica's Law" - which was approved by 70% of the state's voters - prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, and requires them to wear a GPS tracking device for life. The Times' Jenifer Warren reports that Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, in photo, left a federal judge feeling "ambushed" by arguing the new law applies retroactively to old cases - specifically, current sex offenders who try to move into restricted areas.
Significantly, Jessica's Law allows local communities to expand where sex offenders are banned from living or even simply showing up.
In the city of Highland in San Bernardino County, an ordinance is being considered tonight that would carve out an exemption for sex offenders who are legal guardians of children, allowing them to take them to school, bus stops and day care centers. But the city would expand the law to prohibit sex offenders from even being within 300 feet of bus stops, schools, parks and day care centers. San Bernardino County itself has an ordinance clarifying the sex offenders already living in restricted areas would not be forced to move.
In Solano County, elected officials and the sheriff are drafting an ordinance to extend the ban, possibly to near bus stops and equestrian centers. San Diego would ban loitering by sex offenders within 300 feet of "any public or private school for children, child care centers, parks, recreation facilities, playgrounds and arcades in the county's unincorporated areas," the Union-Tribune reported. (Although sex offenders could "exercise" in parks.) In Baldwin Park, a proposed ban would prohibit sex offenders near public day-care centers, community centers, libraries and other facilities where children might gather.
This is how law gets made by initiative. Multiply this scenario by 478 cities and 58 counties in California.
(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
Before the elections become a distant memory, let's take a quick tour of some of the comprehensive theories that aim to explain the electorate's mixed approach to the 13 propositions on the ballot. They nixed the oil tax and cigarette tax measures, campaign finance reform, parental notification about abortion, and restriction on eminent domain. But voters approved lawmakers' infrastructure package, the water bond put on by conservationists and Jessica's Law, the anti-perv measure. What gave?
First, there's the Money Talks theory: as The Times' Dan Morain laid out, the biggest spenders tended to win. Then, this morning, The Times' editorial board offered what might be called the Sacramento First Vantage. The board said the election's lesson was that voters only stomached ideas that had either been put forth by the Legislature — the bond package — and ones that had at least been first considered by lawmakers though not adopted. That would be the water bond and the sex offender measure.
We'll add two less sophisticated explanations. The ADD Analysis notes that the top seven ballot questions all passed but the final six failed. The hypothesis here is that voters got increasingly ticked off as they worked their way down the ballot and finally cried no mas.
And finally there's the Rodney King Thesis: that the electorate OKd measures with no serious opposition but refused to sign off on anything where there was. (Serious disagreement being defined as having enough money to run a real opposition campaign with TV and stuff.) Well? Can't we all get along?
Got nothing better to do this weekend than cook up your own hypothesis? If so, send it to politicalmuscle@latimes.com. The winner gets an autographed copy of Joe Mathews' excellent book, "The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy." (Note that we don't say whose autograph it will contain.)
—Jordan Rau
Proposition 87, which prompted the most expensive ballot campaign in California history, would have raised taxes on oil companies by $4 billion to fund research into alternative fuels and green power over the next decade. But as Newsweek points out, venture capitalists already had recognized this emerging market and started pouring money into alternative fuels and solar power.
 Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer, one of the leading venture capital firms in the country, has decided to invest $200 million into green technologies such as biofuel and solar energy. And, according to the Cleantech Venture Network, investors in the U.S. are expected to put $2.5 billion in environmental startups, the magazine reports. That dwarfs the estimated $400 million that Proposition 87 would have raised in a single year.
New green business plans from entrepreneurs "have swamped" Kleiner Perkins. "There's a lot of pent-up innovation in this space. It's like a dam bursting," investor Bill Joy told the magazine. "The firm has already invested in a dozen cleantech startups. The latest, the UC Berkeley spinoff Amyris Biotechnologies, has plans to bioengineer yeast cells to consume sugar and excrete a biofuel that can be used in cars."
Which begs the question: Why did California need Proposition 87?
Sponsor Stephen L. Bing spent $50 million of his own money on the ballot measure, and Big Oil shelled out $100 million for a TV advertising blitz that saturated the airwaves. Bing's campaign was a huge effort, featuring former a president and celebrities and its own huge advertising campaign, and it came to nothing.
What if Bing had just invested $50 million in startup companies researching alternative fuels? There is no doubt Proposition 87 would have been a critical, groundbreaking investment into researching green fuels. But it's also clear the country was headed in that direction anyway, and in a bigger way.
(Photo: Damian Dovarganes / AP)
According to the Associated Press: A federal judge based in San Francisco on Wednesday blocked enforcement of Proposition 83, the ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by voters a day earlier and meant to crack down on sex offenders, including limiting where they may live. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, ruling on a lawsuit filed early Wednesday, said the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and unconstitutional.
The so-called Jessica's Law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park - effectively prohibiting parolees from living in many of California's cities. It also would require lifetime satellite tracking for paroled rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their release from prison. It would increase sentences and parole terms for violent and habitual sex offenders, and make more sexually violent predators eligible for indefinite commitments to state mental hospitals.
The case challenging Prop 83 was brought by an anonymous sex offender identified as John Doe who was convicted 15 years ago.
UPDATE: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attorney, Andrea Hoch, issued a statement: "The voters have spoken and the governor will vigorously defend the lawsuit so the implementation of this vital measure can go forward to protect Californians against the lewd acts of convicted felons."
 If the trend holds, it looks like the first half of the state propositions ballot will come up a winner, and the last half will falter for the most part. (Click here for results.)
That means the $37 billion bond package placed on the ballot by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic Legislature appears headed for a big win, as does an initiative to put GPS tracking devices on sex offenders, Proposition 83. In addition, voters are likely to approve a bond for water projects.
"Passage of the Rebuild California Plan marks a milestone for our state. It's more than triple the size of the historic state water project championed by Gov. Pat Brown in 1960," said state Senate leader Don Perata of Oakland, who championed the bonds.
On the other end of the ballot, most of the initiatives appear to be tracking poorly with about one-third of the votes counted. Big caveat at this point: Democrat-heavy Los Angeles County, as elections officials predicted, is lagging in its vote counting.
The biggest surprise appears to be how poorly Proposition 87 has been doing throughout the night — not because it couldn't lose, but because the vote tally was expected to be much closer. That oil tax initiative to pay for alternative fuels research prompted Big Oil to spend more than $100 million to defeat it, and real estate heir Stephen L. Bing, in photo, to shell out about $50 million of his own money in support. He even dragged out actor Brad Pitt in a last-days rally.
In a ballroom at the Regent Beverly Wilshire hotel, Proposition 87 campaign manager Chad Griffin told those assembled in the ball room, "This cause ends when we end our addiction to oil."
Tony Rubenstein, the man who came up with the idea for the Proposition 87 campaign and has worked on it for two years said, "The lesson if we win tonight is that $100 million worth of lies were not enough. And if we lose, the lesson is that $100 million worth of lies was not enough because we will lose by a fraction."
(Photo: Chris Jackson / Getty Images)
Tech Trader Daily reports today that solar power stocks are higher as California voters prepare to vote on Proposition 87. The initiative would raise taxes on oil companies to pay for up to $4 billion in research into alternative fuels and solar and wind power projects: "Tim Luke, an analyst at Lehman Brothers, this morning suggested that shares of SunPower (SPWR) could get a short-term lift if the measure was approved."
The latest Field Poll showed the initiative behind by 4 points, 44% against to 40% in favor.
 Just when you thought the Proposition 87 campaign had finally cleared out the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel pool cabanas and kidnapped every available celebrity for its cause, they bring out the big gun:
Leo.
The "Titanic" and "The Departed" star appeared Sunday with U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer to support the oil tax initiative, which would fund alternative fuels for his and Cameron Diaz's hybrid. See pix of Leo fueling up. If the initiative doesn't hit Big Oil's $100 million iceberg and sink tomorrow, Mr. DiCaprio's dreamy eyes could be held singularly responsible for its success. Or credit Alyssa Milano: the actress appears today in Santa Barbara to rally get-out-the-vote efforts for Proposition 87.
(Photo: Chad Buchanan / Getty Images)
The earnest people promoting Proposition 89 — which would allow public financing of campaigns — have come to the conclusion that the measure "is already victorious." The initiative has been a hard-luck case for months, but in a prayer e-mail sent to supporters as the campaign ends, a Proposition 89 staff member projected only positive thoughts amid the sea of bad karma. Anyone who has visited Harbin Hot Springs will understand its meaning: "I recognize and know that there is only one web that connects us all. There is one spirit of love that permeates and manifests as every person, place or thing within the known and the unknown. There is nothing outside of this one living mind. It looks like rocks, trees, rivers, eagles and arachnids. It looks like each and every person in the world no matter what his or her background or belief. It looks like continents, countries, states, districts and precincts.
"I know this too for each and every voter in this state. I know that each voter is a living face of this one spirit. I know that each voter is working with the very best consciousness that they have at this moment in time.
"I say that the spiritual truth of this proposition is that it is already victorious. I say that the power of truth, justice and commitment to change shines through this campaign, through each and every worker, volunteer and voter it touches.
"I know that all that remains is for me to plant my seed into the yielding soil of truth, knowing that it will bear fruit. Thank you infinite spirit. And so it is."
I doubt the Proposition 89 god(s) is the same divine being to whom U.S. Senate candidate Dick Mountjoy is praying. But this is California. Everyone in the hot tub!
  The Proposition 87 campaign wins the Celebrity Saturation award from the Department of Borrowed Charisma this election. No other campaign has thrown out so many actors, musicians and politicians.
This could work in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, but fly-over California may not care much. Whoops, sorry to be such a downer. According to the most recent Field Poll, "voters living in coastal counties, which comprise 72% of all likely voters, narrowly favor the initiative, 44% to 40%. However, voters living in inland areas are opposed two to one." Of course, you can't blame celebrities much -- the oil companies have contributed nearly $100 million to defeat the measure. Even James Caan is no match for that.
  The Proposition 87 celebrity list is big: Geena Davis, sponsor Stephen L. Bing, Julia Roberts, actress Maria Bello, former President Bill Clinton, Eva Longoria, Robert Redford, Ben Affleck and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, billionaire Richard Branson and S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom, Jamie Lee Curtis, Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind, U.C. Merced natural sciences professor David Kelly, actor Caan, Bonnie Raitt, Alyssa Milano, former Vice President Al Gore.
    
      
(Photos: Jack Bland / AP; Chad Buchanan / Getty Images; Damian Dovarganes / AP; Ric Francis / AP; Chris Jackson / Getty Images; Peter Kramer / Getty Images; Ben Margot / AP; Lisa Rose / AP; Stephen Shugerman / Getty Images; Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
 Multimillionaire Stephen L. Bing just committed another $6 million to finance Proposition 87, bringing his total to $49.5 million in support of the initiative that would tax oil companies to pay for alternative fuels research. No other individual has spent as much money on a single initiative or personal political campaign as Bing, who inherited a New York real estate fortune.
Movie producer Bing is one of several millionaires to spend lavishly from their own pockets for the initiative. Google cofounders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have each donated $1 million to Proposition 87, bringing the total donations in support to $56.9 million.
Meanwhile, oil company giants have donated $85.1 million to defeat the tax-raising initiative, Dan Morain reports. Chevron leads the pack, with $34 million, followed by oil producer Aera Energy — a joint venture of Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell — with $30 million.
The combined $142 million spent on Proposition 87 is a record. Previously, the most costly initiative campaign in California — and in the nation — was the $93 million spent on Proposition 5, the 1998 initiative to legalize Nevada-style casino gambling on Indian reservations.
(Photo: Jim Ruymen / Reuters)
 Until now, most Californians didn't have to suffer the four Maloof brothers. But the owners of the Sacramento Kings are appearing in a national TV ad for Carl's Jr. and Hardee's showing off their $1 billion net worth and drinking a $6,000 bottle of French bordeaux — at the same time Sacramento voters are facing a local measure to raise the sales tax for a new $600-million arena and entertainment complex.
The Maloofs may get the Political Sabotage of the Year Award for showing such conspicuous consumption so close to an election that could benefit their franchise. The ad — at the Mint high-limit lounge inside the Maloof-owned Palms Casino in Las Vegas — features a woman serving the plumpish brothers expensive wine while they greedily gorge on hamburgers. "It turns out that a 24-year-old bottle of French Bordeaux pairs nicely with Angus beef, fresh produce, melted American cheese and a fresh, sesame seed bun," Carl's Jr. announced in a press release.
With the tax-increase measure struggling, such an insufferable flaunting of wealth can't help. Joe Maloof said recently: "We are who we are. I think everyone in Sacramento has a sense of humor, I hope they don't take it seriously." But Jeff Raimundo, a local political consultant, told the Sacramento Bee: "I think this shows the Maloofs have written off this ballot measure."
(Photo: CKE Restaurants)
Did Dear Abby just come out against Proposition 85? With an election only days away, the widely distributed advice columnist printed a letter today from "Shocked and Saddened in Sherman Oaks." It sure looks like Dear Abby is in favor of killing the initiative, which would require parents to be informed if their underage daughter seeks an abortion.
 Under the headline, "Friend's Advice to Teen Takes a Tragic Turn," Shocked and Saddened tells the tale of "Jill," who became pregnant and told her parents about it, only to be savagely beaten by her father. In response, Abby writes, "What you failed to take into consideration was the fact that many teens live in homes where there is violence, abuse, drug problems and incest." She added:
"A year ago here in California, there was an attempt to legislate 'parental notification' into law. Fortunately, it was voted down. It's teens like your daughter's friend who would have been harmed by this kind of law. They certainly cannot go to their parents — and I have never believed that the law can successfully force this kind of communication with the home."
(Photo: Universal Press Syndicate)
 Why do the oil companies even try? This afternoon at USC, actress Salma Hayek, Academy Award winner Ben Affleck and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois are scheduled to appear together to promote Proposition 87, which would tax oil production in California to pay for alternative fuels research.
Chevron Corp. might as well get its checkbook out, because you cannot deny the unstoppable force of Bensalmaboma.
Detailed campaign research shows that Hayek voters like their oil companies taxed to the hilt, and Affleck voters like anything that will get Affleck in front of a camera. After the Proposition 87 event, Obama heads across campus to lend his charisma to state Treasurer Phil Angelides.
 
(Photos: William Thomas Cain / Getty Images; Ethan Miller / Getty Images; Seth Wenig / AP)
Will the Proposition 87 campaign's unrelenting effort to shove celebrities down our throats never end? I hope not. Julia Roberts may have a wider smile, but Robert Redford's star power should pull in the over-50 crowd for the oil tax initiative. Plus, he makes great salad dressings! Oh, wait, that's someone else. Either way, Redford is famous and rich, and he deserves our respect.
(Photo: Ric Francis / AP)
The bond package Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature put on the November ballot is getting enough support from voters to pass — in one case, barely enough — according to an internal poll released by the bond campaign. Here are the poll results from J. Moore Methods:
- Proposition 1A (protection for transportation funding): YES-56% ... NO-21% ... NO OPINION-23%
- Proposition 1B ($19.9 billion for roads, ports): YES-50% ... NO-36% ... NO OPINION-14%
- Proposition 1C ($2.9 billion for housing): YES-54% ... NO-32% ... NO OPINION-15%
- Proposition 1D ($10.4 billion for schools): YES-52% ... NO-34% ... NO OPINION-14%
- Proposition 1E ($4.1 billion for levees): YES-55% ... NO-31% ... NO OPINION-15%
Reporters don't usually print campaign tracking polls because they are much less reliable than full-blown polls with larger samples. So treat this as a snapshot from inside the campaign.
About four years ago, a conservative group in Texas called Life Dynamics secretly recorded conversations with workers at nearly 100 Planned Parenthood clinics in California. The caller claimed to be a 13-year-old girl seeking an abortion. She mentions that she has a 22-year-old boyfriend — a clear case of statutory rape.
 Now, those calls are being used to promote Proposition 85, which would require parents to be notified if their underage daughter seeks an abortion. The recordings, available on the Proposition 85 website, offer a dramatic look into the California clinics — and the tactics used by anti-abortion activists to attack Planned Parenthood.
Some workers clearly recognized the problem. In San Jose, the conversation went like this: Clinic: "As a matter of fact, if you bring your boyfriend here, they're going to call the cops."
Girl: "Why?"
Clinic: "Because he's 22 and you're 14."
Girl: "Well, why would they call the cops? I mean..."
Clinic: "Because we're mandated to report. That's called child abuse."
In many others, the clinic workers simply make no comment except to say her situation would be kept confidential. They encourage the girl to set up an appointment. But a Los Angeles worker offers this: "Oh, well, I wish the best for you. That's great. But I really don't hear too many teenagers like with somebody that's that much older. As long as you're happy, that's of course all that matters."
Ana Sandoval, spokeswoman with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said Life Dynamics was "trying for entrapment. From our vantage point, the clients and the public need to know we do report every incident of sexual abuse. You can't do it from a telephone call." Supporters of Proposition 85 said they know numerous cases where nothing was reported.
Life Dynamics has challenged Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer to sue them over the tapes. Leader Mark Crutcher told ABC News: "The attorney general out there, this radical, hard-core, leftist, godless pro-abort that you have for attorney general needs to file charges against us."
 Speaking of recorded phone calls, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton is lending her voice to the campaign against Proposition 85. As the New York Sun discovered, and as Karen Hanretty blogged, the former First Lady taped a phone message to 250,000 Democratic women voters in California. "We are opposed because 85 will put our most vulnerable teens at risk — teens who may already be endangered by negligent or even abusive homes," Clinton says.
To California voters, it may seem natural that Clinton would support the abortion-rights community 100%. Except that she backed a parental notification law in Arkansas, and as late as last year said she "supports parental notification with judicial bypass" — much like Proposition 85.
Even the pro-Proposition 85 campaign lists her as agreeing with the concept: "Parental notification has broad, bipartisan support — both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have stated they support it," the Yes on 85 site declares, the Sun reported.
Though it looks flip-floppy, Clinton aide Ann Lewis told the newspaper the senator has been consistent: "She feels strongly that young teens who would make such a decision should talk to their family and should have the benefit of parental counseling. In most cases, they do. We all know that in a few cases that is just not possible."
(Photos: Prop. 85 campaign; Seth Wenig / AP)
 Stephen L. Bing, the movie producer, has donated another $3.5 million to Proposition 87, the oil tax initiative to fund research into alternative fuels, reports our moneyman Dan Morain. No other individual has contributed as much money to a California campaign as Bing. He tops multimillionaire Al Checchi, who donated about $40 million of his own money to his failed bid for governor in 1998.
Oil companies have an aggressive campaign to defeat the initiative, which would install a first-ever California tax on in-state oil production. Bing has enlisted many of his friends in politics and Hollywood to promote the initiative. Former Vice President Al Gore told a Berkeley crowd today: "This climate crisis is like nothing else we have ever faced."
(Photo: Jim Ruymen / Reuters)
 Great nonironic headline on the inside page of The Times over a story about paid spokesmodels for various initiative campaigns: "Authority Figures in Demand." Media experts are so attuned to what voters allegedly respect that they sometimes can sound like a prom queen in the high school quad: "Firefighters are more popular than teachers," political consultant Steve Smith said.
Sure there are firefighters, nurses and teachers, the popular students. Bill Clinton and Al Gore show up in Proposition 87 ads too. But how about Ben Stein, the game show host and former Nixon speech writer? Stein, in photo, uses his nasally monotone voice in a funny radio ad for Chuck Poochigian, the Republican candidate for attorney general. And Donna Arduin, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's former finance director, has returned to California politics even though she lives in Florida. Bill Hamm anyone?
This year, there is a long line of do-gooders and respectable types taking fees from initiative campaigns. Dan Morain compiled the face book:
- Donna Arduin, No on Proposition 86: $35,000
- William Hamm, No on Proposition 87: $94,000 (former California legislative analyst)
- Alice Huffman, No on Proposition 86: $160,000 (California NAACP, AC Public Affairs)
- Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, No on Proposition 86: $100,000
- Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, No on Proposition 87: $120,00
- Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, Yes on Proposition 89: $109,997
- Orange County Firefighters Voter Guide, No on Proposition 87: $18,600
(Photo: Susan Sterner / AP)
Struggling in the polls and starved for money, the Proposition 89 campaign is getting an assist from trial lawyers — the very group that would be exempt from a major provision of the campaign-finance initiative on the November ballot.
Colleague Dan Morain says the trial law firms Greene Broillet & Wheeler of Santa Monica and Furtado, Jaspovice & Simons of Hayward each gave $10,000 this week. Proposition 89's restrictions on corporate donations to ballot measure campaigns would not apply to trial attorneys, whose firms generally are set up as limited liability partnerships. (UPDATE: The Hayward firm, however, was organized as a corporation.)
Corporations would be restricted to donating $10,000 or less to initiative campaigns. Opponents say an exemption in the initiative sets up an unlevel playing field, allowing Indian tribes, millionaires and trial lawyers to dominate the public debate over ballot measures. Michael Lighty, campaign manager for Prop. 89, responded: "We're soliciting contributions from anyone who is interested in stopping political corruption."
 Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (in photo) — who pledged not to raise taxes in his 2005 reelection campaign — has donated $250,000 to support Proposition 86, the tobacco tax to pay for hospitals and health programs. Shane Goldmacher has the story.
(Photo: Scott Wintrow / Getty Images)
 The Proposition 89 campaign has a new ad that probably won't get on TV very much, given the campaign's funding woes. But it's one of the slickest and most engaging political ads in California right now. Which is ironic, because the ad argues for a halt to the oleaginous, overly simplistic but sometimes engaging political ads that dominate the airwaves during election season.
Watch the ad here.
In this ad, the medium is the message. Rather than targeting corporate donations and their influence on politicians, it attacks television advertising funded by those donations. In essence, they want to clamp down on political speech — the wrong kind, of course. Prop. 89 would severely restrict donations to candidates and limit corporate donations for initiative campaigns to $10,000. That would presumably end advertising campaigns filled with lies and distortions.
Unless, of course, you are a trial lawyer, an Indian tribe or someone extremely wealthy. (Or all three!) As Dan Morain found out, the initiative backers say Prop. 89 would exempt those groups from the $10,000 cap on donations to initiatives. The ad is somewhat misleading because it implies that "rich politicians" would be muzzled. But people like movie producer Steve Bing — who is funding an oil-tax initiative with $40 million of his own money — would be free to run as many ads as they want for their own ballot measure campaigns. And Prop. 89 creates a $200 million pot of money for publicly financed candidates to access; that money could be used for ads filled with lies and distortions as well.
To their credit, the backers make fun of themselves by including their own pro-Prop. 89 ad in the montage as an example of the awful messages on TV.
The new Prop. 89 ad is produced by Bill Hillsman, who first gained national exposure for helping Paul Wellstone win office in Minnesota. Since then, he has worked for the likes of Gov. Jesse Ventura and Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, whose campaign action figure sells for $20.
 Julia Roberts showed up Friday at the 21st Annual American Cinematheque Award gala honoring George Clooney, in Beverly Hills, looking fantastic in a sleek black dress.
But this morning, she put on her smart-girl glasses and did her best imitation of a Sarah Lawrence student really psyched about cleaning up the environment. Notice the drab bare wall and the campaign sign barely hanging on with blue duct tape? That shows she's committed, no matter what.
(Photos: Chris Pizzello / AP; Ann Johansson / AP)
Steve Bing continues to call in chips from his multimillion-dollar support of the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. The ex-prez showed up today at UCLA for a rally supporting the oil tax initiative, which movie producer Bing is sponsoring. Or maybe the students came out to see actress Geena Davis, also there today. Perhaps they wanted to find out more about the funding mechanisms and independent oversight for the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. You make the call.
(Photo: Damian Dovarganes / AP)
 Supporters of Proposition 89, the campaign-finance initiative spearheaded by the California Nurses Assn., have purchased advertising time Wednesday and early Thursday on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" to counter the appearance of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The 30-second ad features footage of Schwarzenegger promising to sweep away special interests from California -- a task, they conclude, that has failed. The spot is scheduled to be shown in Monterey, Los Angeles, San Diego, Palm Springs and Santa Barbara, but not in Sacramento or San Francisco during the show.
State Treasurer Phil Angelides and his supporters have demanded equal time and sent thousands of e-mails to the late-night show — arguing that federal law requires broadcast entertainment shows to be fair to major candidates. Angelides also asked California affiliates to pull the show. But NBC contends the Schwarzenegger segment should be considered news, and therefore exempt from the rules.
(Photo: Damian Dovarganes / AP)
 Former Vice President Al Gore is making his first appearance in a political ad since the 2000 election.
Not surprisingly, he's supporting Proposition 87, which would raise taxes on oil companies to fund alternative fuels research. The initiative is backed with nearly $40 million from his like-minded friend, Steve Bing, the press-shy real estate heir.
Bing has been a major backer of the Democratic Party and he showed up at former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative Summit last month in New York. Gore attended as well.
The 30-second Gore/Proposition 87 television ad features the former vice president talking into the camera about the initiative and "energy security," supporters said. The new advertising campaign, which is being launched today at media events in 11 California cities, is designed to blunt ads funded by oil companies that contend the initiative would funnel money into a "new energy bureaucracy" and waste billions of tax dollars.
Gore is not expected to appear himself at any of the California events, b | |
Democrats are worried that ending their power to draw district lines — or cementing the power of Republicans in some Red states — could jeopardize their continued control of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants a national model rather than a piecemeal approach in all 50 states. Right now, California's legislative districts are drawn by Assembly and Senate leaders using sophisticated computer programs weighing population, demographics and party affiliation.
